Made available by Touch N' Go Systems, Inc. and
This was Gottstein but needs to change to what?
406 G Street, Suite 210, Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 274-7686 fax 274-9493 This site is possible because of the following site sponsors. Please support them with your business.

You can of the Alaska Court of Appeals opinions.

Touch N' Go, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother. Visit Touch N' Go's Website to see how.

Buckley v. State (7/22/2016) ap-2509

Buckley v. State (7/22/2016) ap-2509


                The text           of   this opinion can be corrected before the opinion is published in the                                          

               Pacific Reporter                  .   Readers are encouraged to bring typographical or other formal                                            

               errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts:    

                                                          303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska  99501  

                                                                             Fax:  (907) 264-0878  

                                                                E-mail:  corrections@  

                                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA                                                                   



                                                                                                                     Court of Appeals No. A-12549  


                                                             Appellant,                                            Trial Court No. 4FA-16-1381 CI  


                                                                                                                                   O  P  I  N  I  O  N  



                                                             Appellee.                                                   No. 2509 - July 22, 2016  


                               Appeal  from  the  Superior  Court,  Fourth  Judicial  District,  


                               Fairbanks, Jane F. Kauvar, Judge.  


                               Appearances:  JoyAnna Mickels, Assistant Public Defender, and  


                               Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant.  


                               Donald  Soderstrom,  Assistant  Attorney  General,  Office  of  


                               Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Craig W. Richards, Attorney  


                               General, Juneau, for the Appellee.  


                               Before:  Mannheimer, Chief Judge, Allard, Judge, and Suddock,  


                               Superior Court Judge.*  



                               Judge MANNHEIMER.  

                               The governor of Alaska issued a warrant for the extradition of Jeffery John                                                                                  

Buckley to the State of Oregon to face a charge of criminal non-support (for failing to                                                                                                           

        *       Sitting    by   assignment   made   pursuant   to   Article   IV,   Section   16   of   the   Alaska  

Constitution and Administrative Rule 24(d).                                       

----------------------- Page 2-----------------------


pay more than $20,000 in child support).                                                                                                                                                                             Buckley challenged this extradition warrant                                                                                                                                         

by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus.                                                                                                                                                                                             The superior court denied                                                                                                                      Buckley's  

habeas corpus petition, and Buckley now appeals the superior court's decision on two                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        


                                                                   First, Buckley points out that, even though the Oregon indictment charging                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

him   with   non-support   spells   his   first   name   "Jeffery",   and   even   though   the   Oregon  

governor's extradition request and the Alaska governor's extradition warrant also spell                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

his   first   name   "Jeffery",   the   underlying civil judgement                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  imposing the                                                           child   support  

obligation spells his first name differently - "Jeffrey".                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                   But Buckley has never denied that he is the person indicted for criminal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

non-support in the State of Oregon, and the person named                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      in the Oregon governor's                                                   

 extradition request.                                                                              The Oregon indictment not only spells Buckley's name correctly                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

 ("Jeffery"), but it also recites his date of birth and his driver's license number, as well as                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

the name of his daughter (the child he is obligated to support).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                   Given these circumstances, the fact that the underlying child support order                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

contains a different spelling of Buckley's first name is irrelevant to the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              validity of the                                        

 superior court's extradition order.                                                                                                                                     See Kelly v. State                                                                            , 803 P.2d 876, 878 (Alaska App.                                                                                                                

  1990) (holding that discrepancies in the extradition documentation will not invalidate the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

 extradition request if the record as a whole shows that the discrepancy is a "mere clerical                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 


                                                                   Buckley's second argument is that the State of Oregon is not legally entitled                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

to demand his extradition.                                                                                                         Buckley relies on the wording of AS 12.70.020(a)(1), which                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



                  1               See  AS 12.70.060.                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                              - 2 -                                                                                                                                                                                                          2509

----------------------- Page 3-----------------------


                              No demand for the extradition of a person accused but  


                    not  yet   convicted  of  a  crime  in  another  state  shall  be  


                    recognized  by  the  governor  of  this  state  unless  ...  [it]  


                    contain[s] ... an allegation that the accused was present in the  


                    demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged  


                    crime  and  that  thereafter  the  accused  fled  the  demanding  


                     state; except that this allegation  may  not be required in a  


                    proceeding based on AS 12.70.050[.]  


                    Buckley asserts that he was not present in the State of Oregon during the  


time covered by the criminal non-support indictment - and that, therefore, even if he  


did fail to pay the court-ordered child support as alleged in the Oregon indictment, the  


governor  of  Oregon  could  not  properly  allege  that  "[Buckley]  was  present  in  the  


demandingstate [i.e., Oregon] at the time of the commission of the alleged crime and that  


[he] thereafter ... fled the demanding state".  


                    Buckley's argument overlooks the last clause of AS 12.70.020(a)(1) - the  


clause declaring that, in cases covered by AS 12.70.050, an extradition demand does not  


have to include an allegation that the accused was physically present in the demanding  


state when the crime was allegedly committed.  


                    AS 12.70.050 expressly authorizes the governor of Alaska to extradite a  


person charged with "committing an act in [Alaska], or [in] a third state, intentionally  


resulting in a crime in the [demanding] state ... , even though the accused was not in [the  


demanding] state at the time of the commission of the crime and has not fled from that  




                    This provision applies to Buckley:   if,  while living outside the State of  


Oregon, Buckley intentionally failed to pay the child support that he owed in Oregon,  


then the Oregon authorities could properly charge him with criminal non-support, and  


the governor of Alaska was authorized to order his extradition to Oregon.  

                                                               - 3 -                                                          2509

----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

                                                 See   Moser   v.   Zaborac,   514    P.2d   12   (Alaska   1973)   (upholding   the  

defendant's extradition to Minnesota,                                                                                                          based on allegations that he committed acts in                                                                                                                            

Idaho that resulted in the commission of a crime in Minnesota).                                                                                                                                                                                   See also Clayton v.                                                    

 Wichael, 141 N.W.2d 538, 539 (Iowa 1966) (upholding the defendant's extradition to                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Oregon for criminal non-support, even though the defendant testified that he was living                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

outside Oregon when he failed to make his support payments).  


                                                 Because there is no merit to either of Buckley's arguments on appeal, the                                                                                                                                                                                           

superior court's decision is AFFIRMED.  


                                                                                                                                                        - 4 -                                                                                                                                                    2509

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules

IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights